Fairfax County General :
Fairfax Underground
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.

Couldn't happen to a nicer unic Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Stop watching PMSNBC - they are a horrible waste of time.

MSNBC takes a stab at being independent. Not so with any of your line-up of right-wing tripe-dispensing outlets, all of which are dedicated to pushing the same pack of badly-crafted lies -- a crock of shit that morons like you actually fall for. What a farce.

It's somewhat amazing that the corporate and fundie extremists behind the now massive alt-right media construct told everyone exactly what they were doing with all that money all along -- they wanted to force conservative ideas into the mainstream marketplace of ideas, and then force everything else out. They're still at that.

According to the Washington Post, Mueller sent a letter to Barr last month saying he was concerned Barr was not accurately summarizing the report in Barr's four page letter to Congress. Sounds like they were not working together that well, at least at that point. It also sounds like Barr was not working with Mueller on Barr's initial findings. This letter from Mueller may have been an unwanted catalyst for Barr to use more Mueller input on the material released. It now appears, at the time of the reporting, Rachel was correct in her wording-Barr did not seek Mueller's input on the summary, but Mueller may have been working, at what level we don't know, on the redactions.

An appology is on order for being stupid enough to believe a blog is gospel truth.

Collusion Delusions Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah, things have gotten worse since. CNN and MSNBC were
> 24x7 Russian Collusion!!! speculation and opinion for
> the last few years.

In the real world, it was Trump who was all off on a "collusion" binge. Even Giuliani was pointing out that there is no relatable crime called "collusion," but Trump kept screaming his denials on and on just the same, thus pushing the word into popular parlance.

Claim that people are accusing you of a crime that doesn't exist, then ultimately declare that you have been cleared of it. In fact, claim total vindication and exoneration for all possible crimes out of it. This is how people who never made the honor roll like to play the game.

Counter-intelligence probe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So weak. COLLUSION is a Trump word, and it has
> been from the beginning. Words like 'asset,'
> 'compromat,' and 'conspiracy' have been more what
> the loyal opposition has been focused on.

How did the word “collusion” get introduced into the public lexicon? And who is initially responsible for introducing it? The answer, it turns out, goes back to July of 2016 at the Democratic National Convention.

On July 22, 2016, Wikileaks released more than 19,000 emails from top members of the Democratic National Committee. Two days after the release, Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager Robby Mook told CNN that, according to “experts,” Russian state actors had stolen the emails from the DNC and were releasing them through Wikileaks “for the purpose of actually helping Donald Trump.”

Mook did not use the word “collusion,” but the press, in reporting his comments, did. Within the hour, in an article timestamped at 9:55 a.m., the Washington Examiner reported that Paul Manafort and Donald Trump Jr, had responded to Mook’s allegations and “vigorously denied any kind of collusion between Trump Sr. and the Russian president.” (To be clear, Manafort denied “any ties” between Putin and the Trump campaign, and Donald Trump Jr. criticized Mook for “lie after lie.” Neither one of them mentioned “collusion.”) Ninety minutes later, at 11:27 a.m., ABC News repeated what it termed Mook’s “allegation of collusion between the campaign and Russia.” And three hours later, at approximately 12:35 p.m., Bernie Sanders’s campaign manager, Jeff Weaver, told CNN’s Jake Tapper, “If there was some kind of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence or Russian hackers, that clearly has to be dealt with.”

From there it was off to the races. Over the next two weeks, the word “collusion” was used hundreds of times by politicians like Martin O’Malley and media personalities such as Trevor Noah.

The term caught on, I think, because it captured the general suspicion that the campaign was somehow in on the hack or knowingly benefiting from it while carefully eliding the fact that no tangible evidence had yet emerged tying the Trump campaign to the Kremlin. (Remember that news of the Trump Tower meeting and other contacts between the campaign and Russian actors had not yet become public.)

After this initial spurt, the collusion frenzy tapered off. Through August and September the word appeared only sporadically in the press, as other stories edged out the Trump-Russia narrative for dominance in the campaign. But when Wikileaks published more than 50,000 emails from Clinton’s campaign chairman in October of 2016, the term had a renaissance of sorts.

The popularity of the term continued to wax and wane throughout the final months of 2016. When a big story would break about Trump, the campaign, or Clinton’s emails, the word “collusion” would appear in headlines. Not every story described the relationship as collusion. Some referred to it as “ties” with Russia. Others questioned whether Trump was “coordinating” with Putin. Collusion had not yet become the de facto term to describe the Russia connection. But it was very much in the mix.

WRONG. You should pay better attention to the facts. Stupid people generally have trouble with facts.

How did the word “collusion” get introduced into the public lexicon? And who is initially responsible for introducing it? The answer, it turns out, goes back to July of 2016 at the Democratic National Convention.

On July 22, 2016, Wikileaks released more than 19,000 emails from top members of the Democratic National Committee. Two days after the release, Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager Robby Mook told CNN that, according to “experts,” Russian state actors had stolen the emails from the DNC and were releasing them through Wikileaks “for the purpose of actually helping Donald Trump.”

Mook did not use the word “collusion,” but the press, in reporting his comments, did. Within the hour, in an article timestamped at 9:55 a.m., the Washington Examiner reported that Paul Manafort and Donald Trump Jr, had responded to Mook’s allegations and “vigorously denied any kind of collusion between Trump Sr. and the Russian president.” (To be clear, Manafort denied “any ties” between Putin and the Trump campaign, and Donald Trump Jr. criticized Mook for “lie after lie.” Neither one of them mentioned “collusion.”) Ninety minutes later, at 11:27 a.m., ABC News repeated what it termed Mook’s “allegation of collusion between the campaign and Russia.” And three hours later, at approximately 12:35 p.m., Bernie Sanders’s campaign manager, Jeff Weaver, told CNN’s Jake Tapper, “If there was some kind of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence or Russian hackers, that clearly has to be dealt with.”

From there it was off to the races. Over the next two weeks, the word “collusion” was used hundreds of times by politicians like Martin O’Malley and media personalities such as Trevor Noah.

The term caught on, I think, because it captured the general suspicion that the campaign was somehow in on the hack or knowingly benefiting from it while carefully eliding the fact that no tangible evidence had yet emerged tying the Trump campaign to the Kremlin. (Remember that news of the Trump Tower meeting and other contacts between the campaign and Russian actors had not yet become public.)

After this initial spurt, the collusion frenzy tapered off. Through August and September the word appeared only sporadically in the press, as other stories edged out the Trump-Russia narrative for dominance in the campaign. But when Wikileaks published more than 50,000 emails from Clinton’s campaign chairman in October of 2016, the term had a renaissance of sorts.

The popularity of the term continued to wax and wane throughout the final months of 2016. When a big story would break about Trump, the campaign, or Clinton’s emails, the word “collusion” would appear in headlines. Not every story described the relationship as collusion. Some referred to it as “ties” with Russia. Others questioned whether Trump was “coordinating” with Putin. Collusion had not yet become the de facto term to describe the Russia connection. But it was very much in the mix.

Counter-intelligence probe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So weak. COLLUSION is a Trump word, and it has
> been from the beginning. Words like 'asset,'
> 'compromat,' and 'conspiracy' have been more what
> the loyal opposition has been focused on.

Rachel hisself will tell you that it ain't about the news it do be more about what is happening on the south side. He be doing fine and will survive his peoples survived much worse from all you crackers.

Such a farce... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> TRMS pisses you assholes off because shes a
> lesbian who's got more muscle, brains, and balls
> than any of you retarded dipshits do.

Such a farce... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> TRMS pisses you assholes off because shes a
> lesbian who's got more muscle, brains, and balls
> than any of you retarded dipshits do.

That’s how she rolls. A high IQ talking to high IQ’s. So very far away from the situation at FOX News and such.

Cutting edge Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Kamala Harris on TRMS last night on the heels of
> having made the dumbfounded toady Bill Barr look
> like such a jerk in Senate hearings.

of course, by "jerk", I mean "someone who spanked my moronic democrat idols".

No, that's NOT at all what was meant, and you should try to dig down deep to see if you have any more class than can be found in swiping other people's handles. I doubt of course that you -- as just a worthless turd -- will be able to make any such discovery.

Margaret Sanger was a great champion of black women, particularly poor black women of the south whose need for access to birth control was often unseen, being hidden away behind the cracker curtains of racist oppression that so stained that place in those times.

Facts of the matter... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Margaret Sanger was a great champion of black
> women, particularly poor black women of the south
> whose need for access to birth control was often
> unseen, being hidden away behind the cracker
> curtains of racist oppression that so stained
> that place in those times.

+1. Responsible for killing more little nigger babies than anyone in history. About half of which would have been female nigger babies who would have had even more little nigger babies. Think how many little nigger babies we'd have running around without the great little nigger baby killing organization that she created.

The organization that Sanger founded in 1921 was the American Birth Control League which sought to get information concerning contraception into the hands of American women. Old white men of the day had made various aspects of that a crime at the time.

Sanger herself was opposed to abortion except under extreme circumstances. Most of us these days realize that the decision to carry or not carry a pregnancy to term belongs with the woman involved.

Dr. Beaker Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The organization that Sanger founded in 1921 was
> the American Birth Control League which sought to
> get information concerning contraception into the
> hands of American women. Old white men of the day
> had made various aspects of that a crime at the
> time.
>
> Sanger herself was opposed to abortion except
> under extreme circumstances. Most of us these
> days realize that the decision to carry or not
> carry a pregnancy to term belongs with the woman
> involved.

"Birth Control will prevent abortion. It will do away with the practice of taking drugs and poisonous nostrums to end undesired pregnancies. It will put an end to the tens of thousands of illegal operations to which women resort in despair. Mothers will not submit to the murder of unborn children when they can control conception."

"While there are cases where even the law recognizes an abortion as justifiable if recommended by a physician, I assert that the hundreds of thousands of abortions performed in America each year are a disgrace to civilization."

Dr. Beaker Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sadly the stupid little shits who think they
> understand the first thing about Margaret Sanger's
> life and work continue to drive their sordid
> programs of utter and irredeemable ignorance.

not that you know anything about her either, DIMWIT, except what you read on WiKi.

"Birth Control will prevent abortion. It will do away with the practice of taking drugs and poisonous nostrums to end undesired pregnancies. It will put an end to the tens of thousands of illegal operations to which women resort in despair. Mothers will not submit to the murder of unborn children when they can control conception."

The woman so many idiots try to vilify was indeed a proponent of birth control and an opponent of abortion. But you won’t be in a position to talk about her intelligently until you have spent quite a lot of time at the Sanger Papers Project.

Dr. Beaker Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The woman so many idiots try to vilify was indeed
> a proponent of birth control and an opponent of
> abortion. But you won’t be in a position to
> talk about her intelligently until you have spent
> quite a lot of time at the Sanger Papers Project.

"While there are cases where even the law recognizes an abortion as justifiable if recommended by a physician, I assert that the hundreds of thousands of abortions performed in America each year are a disgrace to civilization."

You aren't worth dog-shit, and the scam is 100% by worthless God-mongering fundie asswipes seeking to play around where they have no business being. So shove it all up your sorry ass and let it rot there as it deserves.

Keep in mind that your invisible friend, Jesus of Nazareth, never said a single word about abortion even though it was practiced (in the Temple) in his day. Got all in a huff and tossed out the money-changers, but nary a word about abortions. And he was without sin, you know. LOL!

Signs of the times Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You aren't worth dog-shit, and the scam is 100% by worthless
> God-mongering fundie asswipes seeking to play around where they
> have no business being. So shove it all up your sorry ass and
> let it rot there as it deserves.

It's all like S&H Green Stamps used to be. If the abusers can force enough heathen to convert (on pain of death) to Xtianity, or if they can save enough unborn souls to one day sing praises to the vanity of their awful God in some non-existent choir celestial, then they get bonus points added to their score when they finally reach the Pearly Gates. It's all a total crock of shit of course, but these poor excuses for people have been inflicting horrible pain and suffering upon innocents for millennia now over it. Hard to imagine a more corrupt and dismal set of absolute villains than these.

>
> Keep in mind that your invisible friend, Jesus of
> Nazareth, never said a single word about abortion
> even though it was practiced (in the Temple) in
> his day. Got all in a huff and tossed out the
> money-changers, but nary a word about abortions.
> And he was without sin, you know. LOL!

Why did Jesus then not say a single word about abortion in his lifetime when it was being practiced right before his eyes in the temple?

Let's just follow the bouncing ball here and realize that abortion was commonplace in America until after the Civil War when a wave of surgeons newly trained in the art of amputation returned home and tried to open a practice in order to suport themselves. There was not much demand for what they were good at anymore, but there was a big demand for abortion. Sadly, the principles of antiseptic surgery were all but unknown at the time, and resort to surgical abortion brought down a plague of death upon young mothers throughout the land.

That left hordes of orphans at home with maladroit fathers completely untrained in and entirely incompetent to the demands and challenges of rearing their own children. It was the church that heard their plaintive cries and responded by fueling a misguided crusade to end abortion, an effort that ironically reached fruition at just about the point where safe, antiseptic surgery had become the norm. Too bad we can't have a mulligan on that one.

Stupid myth and superstition Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why did Jesus then not say a single word about
> abortion in his lifetime when it was being
> practiced right before his eyes in the temple?

Ask Jimmy Carter. He's the one that said Jesus wouldn't approve of abortion.

Stupid myth and superstition Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why did Jesus then not say a single word about
> abortion in his lifetime when it was being
> practiced right before his eyes in the temple?

As you can see, these idiots can't answer that one.

> Let's just follow the bouncing ball here and
> realize that abortion was commonplace in America
> until after the Civil War when a wave of surgeons
> newly trained in the art of amputation returned
> home and tried to open a practice in order to
> suport themselves. There was not much demand for
> what they were good at anymore, but there was a
> big demand for abortion. Sadly, the principles of
> antiseptic surgery were all but unknown at the
> time, and resort to surgical abortion brought down
> a plague of death upon young mothers throughout
> the land.
>
> That left hordes of orphans at home with maladroit
> fathers completely untrained in and entirely
> incompetent to the demands and challenges of
> rearing their own children. It was the church
> that heard their plaintive cries and responded by
> fueling a misguided crusade to end abortion, an
> effort that ironically reached fruition at just
> about the point where safe, antiseptic surgery had
> become the norm. Too bad we can't have a mulligan
> on that one.

Some actual history that the idiots were never taught and never bothered to track down for themselves. That's how to get and stay stupid.